Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86, cpufeature: Rename X86_FEATURE_DTS to X86_FEATURE_DTHERM

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

On 06/24/2012 12:49 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
>>
>> Therefore, rename this to "dtherm".
>
> I see the rationale for changing the string in /proc/cpuinfo, and
> "dtherm" is reasonably good. I fail to see the rationale for changing
> the X86_FEATURE_ name though, this is an API change we don't need. Plus
> X86_FEATURE_DTS has the merit of naming the feature the way it is
> commonly done in technical documentation, so readers know exactly what
> it refers too, which isn't the case of DTHERM. So can we please stick
> to X86_FEATURE_DTS?
>

Except that *really* seems like begging for similar problems in the future.

>> This conflict went into mainline via the hwmon tree without any x86
>> maintainer ack, and without any kind of hint in the subject.
>>
>>      a4659053 x86/hwmon: fix initialization of coretemp
>
> All 3 x86 maintainers were Cc'd, none commented. And you know fairly
> well why the patch went through the hwmon tree. So please stop the
> finger-pointing. It's unfortunate that it happened, but it did, and we
> try to fix it now, period.
>
>> Reported-by: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
>> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/4FE34BCB.5050305@linux.intel.com
>> Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
>> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> v2.6.36..v3.4
>
> No Signed-off-by?
>
> Not sure why you want this to go to stable trees?
>

I think we want to minimize the ABI divergence here.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.